Will football ever learn to accept homosexuality?

Modern football is, on the whole, a large melting pot. It's played in virtually every country worldwide, by all different kinds of people. If you look at the English Football League, you will find players of all colours, nationalities and creeds. Whites play alongside blacks, Catholics alongside Protestants, Muslims alongside Jews.

However, when it comes to sexuality, then the picture becomes very vague. In all ninety-two clubs of the Football League pyramid, there isn't a single openly gay player.

Statistically, about 6% of the UK population are gay or lesbian. Although it's not as simple as applying this statistic to football and assuming that 6% of all League players are gay, it still means that, in a sport where each team has 41 players on average on their books, not to have one gay player from a pool of nearly four thousand doesn't match up.

The unwillingness for gay players to come out is for a simple reason: football is steeped in homophobia. Many figures in the media, such as PR advisor Max Clifford - who claims to represent several gay footballers - and former Ireland footballer Tony Cascarino, believe a player's career would be ruined if he came out. He'd be singled out for abuse from the crowd, ostracised by his team-mates in the dressing room, bullied by the manager, and made subject of vicious gossip in the media.

There is a tragic precedent in Justin Fashanu, the only player in British football ever to come out. Even before he came out publicly, Brian Clough, who found out he was gay while at Forest, barred him from training with the first team, and condemned him for going to "bloody poof's clubs". Fellow professionals also castigated him, claiming a homosexual has no place in football, he was disowned by his own brother, and later on, accused of sexually assaulting a seventeen-year old in the US, which eventually led to Justin's suicide.

For all the problems British football has with homophobia, two things need to be considered: one is the culture of the sport itself within the country, and the other is the country's stance on homosexuality. Although football itself in the UK suffers from homophobia, our society, when compared to many other countries, is quite tolerant of the LGBT scene. Openly gay politicians exist (Peter Mandelson. Chris Bryant), as do media personalities (Stephen Fry), and even professionals in other sports. Gareth Thomas, one of Wales' greatest rugby players, came out in 2009, and the reaction to this was incredibly positive. Circulations such as Gay Times and Attitude are sold without problems, and the gay scene is thriving, with bars, clubs and Pride events operating and running smoothly.

Anton Hysen, only the second active high-level footballer ever to come out.

It may take several years, but I believe it's a matter of when, rather than if, a popular football figure in Britain, perhaps in the twilight of their career or retired from playing, decides to come out, which could very well set the ball rolling for the FA to relaunch the Kick Homophobia Out Of Football campaign (aborted because no player was willing to appear in it), to gradually change the zeitgeist of football fans, and to eventually convince many players, young and old, that being openly gay will not hinder their careers as footballers.

Now, the problem is convincing everyone on the international scene.

I believe the first active player to come out in the UK will be from a small team at the lower end of the Football League, because the media exposure won't be as great there. Initially, it may well garner interest from many countries, but it will die down quickly, just like the Anton Hysen story did, and because the fans of small clubs are usually tight-knit, almost a part of the club itself, it won't be a big deal for them - many may have even known it for a while already. Chances are they won't be playing in a European tournament, so all league and cup matches will be in England and Wales, where the FA and the League can monitor the games and promptly punish any instances of homophobic abuse.

Now, imagine if a first team player at a huge club like Manchester United, capped for his country, came out as gay. It would explode as global news and remain global news that would make front pages everywhere - including countries where homosexuality is reviled or forbidden. In eighty countries worldwide - around two fifths of the world - it's against the law. Seventy-two of those punish consenting adults with inprisonment, while five, including regional footballing powerhouses Saudi Arabia and Iran, have the death penalty. Would the player be issued with an arrest warrant upon touching down at the airport for an away game or international tournament? How viciously would the player be abused, verbally or even physically, by large groups of fans who may view him as sub-human or as an enemy of God? And what punishment would the likes of UEFA and FIFA, whose very own president Sepp Blatter advised gay football fans to "refrain from any sexual activity" at the Qatar 2022 World Cup (where homosexuality is illegal), administer to clubs and associations whose fans are guilty of homophobic abuse?

The customs and laws of certain countries, and subsequent reactions of its leaders and subjects, prove to be a strong enough deterrent against coming out, but even in countries and regions where things are generally more liberal, the football world manages to keep a high level of animosity and hatred towards homosexuals. If a major player or manager made a racist comment, they would be condemned by virtually everybody in the industry, and rightly so, but important, respected individuals, from players to managers to directors, regularly criticise homosexuals, and get away with it.

Quotes include: "A bunch of faggots is what you have in French football. There are so many homosexual players there, they always provoke you, they touch your thighs, your bum, to see if you will give some kind of signal", which was the reason given by former Argentina international Eduardo Berizzo for leaving Olympique Marseille in 2000, while in 2002, Brazil World Cup winning manager Luis Felipe Scolari said: “If I found out that one of my players was gay I would throw him off the team.” Steaua Bucharest owner and Romanian MEP Gigi Becali, stated in 2007 that if he became president of Romania, he would "get rid of all homosexual and lesbian clubs, and create special neighbourhoods for homosexuals and lesbians, so that they can stay there and leave us [alone]", while Croatian Football Federation president Vlatko Markovic declared in 2010: "while I'm... president of the Croatian Football Federation, there will be no homosexuals playing in the national team". Again, criticism didn't come from the footballing authorities, rather from gay rights groups.

The FA's Kick Homophobia Out Of Football video. This campaign was aborted because no player could be found to support it.

And aside from the player's wellbeing and safety being potentially affected, coming out would impact the player's and the club's marketability. While the likes of Macclesfield Town aren't looking to sell shirts abroad, the likes of Man Utd or Chelsea are, and any mass boycott of a club's merchandise or tickets in a lucrative country where homosexuality is illegal, because of one of the club's players coming out, would severely impact their income and their reputation, leaving other clubs open to exploit the market in their place.

Disgraceful as the above sounds, football is an international business where reputation is key - witness how many top clubs speak of being "brands" and just how much merchandise they have out - and bearing in mind how prejudist and close-minded the marketing industry is, and how breaching sponsorships is seen as a bigger issue than racism (from the Observer's Said and Done column from Dec 12 2004: "£6,769 - Real Madrid's fine for racist chanting and Nazi salutes during their Champions League match with Bayer Leverkusen. £34,500 - Arsenal midfielder Robert Pires' fine for wearing the wrong sponsored T-shirt on French television in October."), it wouldn't be surprising if gay players at top clubs were forced to keep their sexuality hidden until, at best, well after leaving the club.

Charlie Brooker exposes just how cynical the marketing and advertising industry is.

How could we expect a young, lone player to come out against such a torrent of hatred, ridicule and vitriol?

Because football is a global sport, it reins in all cultures and viewpoints of the world, which is a joy to witness, but unfortunately, it's the most bigoted aspects which cause the most noise and disturbance. This, combined with indifference from the establishment, and a desire for chairmen, directors and owners for whom their "team" is actually just a "brand", to carry on cynically targeting those markets where institutional homophobia is rife, at the expense of the wellbeing of one of their own players, render world football a very inhospitable arena for the LGBT community.

Gareth Thomas' homosexuality has been widely accepted and respected. Would this happen in football?

The key to combat this is to ensure that every aspect of British football, from the suits in charge of the establishment, to the international clubs who contest for the top trophies and target overseas markets, all the way down to the Sunday leagues and the fans and spectators, stamps out homophobia in the way racism has been, to the point where any displays of abusive behavour are swiftly condemned by all, and openly gay players become another ingredient in our melting pot, regardless of pressure and ridicule from the outside. And if we can then convince the likes of UEFA and FIFA to also condemn homophobia across the whole game and toughen their stance on all forms of abusive behaviour, including suspension from competitions, then we may be able to ensure a safe playing environment and private life for any footballers who just so happen to love members of the same sex.

It is such a shame regarding the current state of affairs because football, in its purest form, the game itself, doesn't have a sexuality. It doesn't hold any prejudice. It doesn't discriminate. The problem is, those involved in it do.

How can footballers' salaries be justified?

In the media, few professions (bankers and politicians aside) collectively cause as much ire as that of the footballer. Each day he gets up, goes to the training ground, does some light training, has a rest, some more training, then goes home. He often travels to other cities, sometimes to other countries, trains there, then once or twice a week he has to put his training into practice and play a full game of football, where he will be scrutinised by the crowd and the various media outlets. Some retrospective analysis, a shower and a meal and some drinks later, he will head home. A few press conferences to attend, some community activities to partake in, and if he’s particularly good, the odd awards ceremony. Not so much a job as part holiday, part exercise. His weekly exploits are regional news, sometimes national or even global. Okay, they have to work weekends and bank holidays, but it’s a tiny price to pay for all the perks.

The average person has to pay a few hundred pounds a year for the same exercise and many hundreds of pounds to rack up the same air miles. And on top of all this, the top league footballer gets thousands of pounds for the troubles. Not a year, not a month, not even a week, but daily. In October 2010, Wayne Rooney signed a deal at Manchester United worth around £160,000 a week basic, and features a “break clause” where he can leave for as “little” as £30m if Manchester United doesn’t meet its targets. You read that right - whereas in the real world, people lose their jobs if they don’t meet targets, in the world of football, it’s the employer that has to meet targets to stop losing its employees!

In addition to the wages and the job security, there’s bonuses, endorsements, sponsors and image rights - Rooney will become a wealthy man indeed, despite having contributed little to society. “Why do footballers get paid so much?!” moan the masses. “Why don’t soldiers or nurses get paid that much? They sacrifice their lives and/or save lives!”.

The simple reason why footballers get paid so much: it’s the nature of the industry.

Think about it: football is the biggest and most global single sport on the planet. The World Cup final in 2010 was watched by over 700 million people, with over 90% of Spain and the Netherlands’ viewing populations tuning in to watch their teams jostle for the trophy. The English Premier League’s overseas broadcasting rights deal between 2010 and 2013 stands at £1.4bn, and its games are watched in nearly 600,000 homes in 211 countries and territories worldwide. With so many people out there interested in football as a product, and willing to pay for it, this translates into astronomical sums of money to be made, and in turn, this means that football, by its very nature, will have astronomical sums swilling around in the industry.

The game has always been global. The first World Cup was all the way back in 1930, and with the advent of globalisation and technological advances facilitating communication and travel, it was always scheduled to become even bigger, but financially, it wasn’t always like it is. Back in 1968, the average wage in the English top division was £68 per week, although the wages of the standout superstar of his day, George Best, £1,000 a week, was an early sign of the impending marriage between football and global fame. Even as recently as 15 years ago, the average weekly wage was just under four grand. Today, it’s nearly thirty-four, and even this is offset by each year’s promoted clubs whose wage bills will be relatively modest - regarding the financially bigger clubs, Chelsea’s annual player wage bill is £174m, Manchester City £133m and Manchester United £132m.

On a side note, it’s only really top league footballers who get paid astronomical salaries - a BBC article in 2006 highlighted a substantial drop in wages down in the divisions. In England, League One players earned £67,850 pa and League Two £49,600 pa - that’s less than some doctors, managing directors or public servants. Also, footballers in England are lucky compared to other countries in Europe - third or fourth divisions in most other countries, Spain and Italy included, tend to be part-time or amateur, thus not making nearly as much money as their English counterparts.

Football, as a sport, capitalises on being simple to follow and to play, meaning it’s easy to take an interest in, and on the free-flowing, unpredictable, exciting nature of the game. Football means a lot emotionally to millions of people worldwide, who are prepared to invest a sizeable chunk of their income in order to follow and support their team. Stephen Tomkins of the BBC likened football to a religion in 2004, and seeing people’s faces contort from disbelief at the star striker’s penalty miss, to anger at the referee’s shocking decision, to tense agony at running down the clock on a 3-2 lead with 5 minutes to go, to euphoria when the referee’s whistle blows to signal the confirmation of the result, or despair when the opposition team bundles the ball in on the final kick of the game, it’s testament to how much it means to people. They identify with football.

Thanks to the above reasons, the money-minded of this world have figured out that such a captive, devoted audience is prime ground for profits, and thanks to such things as the formation of the Premier League in 1992, providing premium TV revenue for the top tier teams, advances in technology leading to saturation of football coverage, ie the voyeuristic nature of 24-hour football coverage on Sky Sports News and online sites, the front page headline-hogging, celebrity-mingling and scandal-perpetuating antics of the likes of David Beckham and Wayne Rooney, and the emergence of new global markets like China, India, the Middle East and Africa, football has snowballed into the global behemoth it is today.



David Mitchell's great satire of how Sky Sports sensationalises football just a bit too much.

Players which have marketability have a distinct advantage - Cristiano Ronaldo was bought for £80 million in 2009, and according to Real Madrid, his fee has already been repaid in merchandising sales alone. Likewise, whenever a major English player is traded in the transfer window, it’s like they’re in a market of their own, so skewed are the fees incurred by the “English Premium” (Andy Carroll for £35 million, anybody?). The reason? Big English players will more likely sell more shirts, as English fans will look up to them as England players as well as club players, the media will cover them more for the same reason, and also respect the club for “giving English players a chance”.

It’s got to a point where the actual competitive games, both in the league and cups, have become a bit of a distraction to the off-pitch aspects, like marketing, merchandise, transfer window activity etc. But, in the midst of all this, what it boils down to at the end of the day, both for the suits and the fans, is the 90 minutes (plus added extra time if necessary) of football between the two teams, the result which determines which team wins and which team loses, and the many possible permutations which determine, in the long run, who wins the trophy (and prize money), who ends up in which European competition (with varying degrees of TV and prize money), and who drops down a league and loses out on huge amounts of money. Money which, alongside being used as disposable income by everyone involved in the club, also ensures the future purchase and development of future players and staff, as well as paying back debts, and in some cases can keep a club in existence.

And although the managers, coaches, scouts etc play a big part in getting the teams ready, it’s the frontline troops, the players themselves, who have the last say on whether the above are or aren’t achieved. And as a result, it’s crucial to buy the best players, and because genuinely outstanding players are rare, it’s a case of who can bid the most, both in terms of transfer fees and in wages and incentives. And the more money there is to be made, the more money there is to lose, and with the stakes so high, paying £100,000 a week to a player whose twenty goals a season will ensure a club’s automatic qualification in the Champions’ League, or avoid a drop to the Championship, makes perfect financial sense.

In response to those who reckon a salary cap would be beneficial to football, I ask them to contemplate how such a scheme would be implementable worldwide, because if it was applied solely to the English leagues, then all the best players would simply move overseas to the highest bidder, as we are seeing with British rugby talent playing in the French league. Even a EU-wide ban would simply mean easy pickings for the likes of Qatar, the Emirates and Russia offering bumper contracts to players, who’d then move there en masse and preach about how competitive their league is, or how they’re proud to be part of a “new project” and “creating history”, and how they’re not in it for the money. And if money can persuade Samuel Eto’o, one of the most gifted footballers of his generation, to play in Dagestan, one of the most volatile regions in Russia, then what hope have we to convince other players to stay put in the UK or the EU if the money’s elsewhere?

Marquee players in the twilight of their careers have often opted for short-term contracts in leagues that offer high wages.

Football’s money does trickle down to communities. Typing in “Blackburn” in a search engine brings up several matches for the club before any article about the town, which makes you wonder if losing the club, and as a result the media interest, would severely impact the town’s economy. And likewise, Blackpool’s promotion into the Premier League in 2010 wasn’t only fantastic from a footballing sense, but it was also lauded by the town’s council, claiming their club’s top-flight status, and the visitors and media interest it would bring, would regenerate the whole town. As a result, we’re left in a position where people are rightly unhappy with the status quo and having footballers earn millions for doing something which isn’t greatly beneficial to society, but the only way of addressing that - enforcing a salary cap in the UK - would drive all the talent away, and with it the interest of the people and potential investors, and with it the money.

We can’t hate the players for accepting the money, we would do the same. We can’t hate the game of football, because it provides us with emotions. But hating what the game has become? The gentrification, the marketing, the hijacking from multinational corporations, dodgy tax-avoiding businessmen and even dictators, who abuse the masses’ love and devotion to line their pockets? The inability to enforce a salary cap, lest it destroys the quality of the league and deprives towns and cities of the trickle-down money which can revive enterprise and provide jobs and happiness? Yes, we have every right to hate that.

European Football - the best it's ever been?

A recent article by Jim White, columnist for Yahoo Eurosport and the Telegraph, described how the new Champions League format - where champions of the lesser-known leagues are pitted against each other in a play-off round (previously known officially as the third round), while non-champions from the bigger leagues have to play each other in order to progress - as a farce. He slammed the group stages as "institutionally fixed", and “not a competition (but) an exercise in ensuring the big names progress smoothly”. Pretty strong words from the veteran journalist.

However, when the Champions League didn’t have this system, then journalists claimed it was a closed cartel. Always the same names in the competition. Very rarely did champions from smaller footballing countries make it through - teams such as BATE Borisov from Belarus, MSK Zilina from Slovakia or FK Partizan would often be relegated to the UEFA Cup and nothing more, while third and fourth-placed teams from Italy, Spain and England would breeze through the third round. Eshaan Koshal argued this in a Goal.com editorial two years ago. He, like many, harked back to the old European Cup, a knockout cup contested between actual league champions and direct runners-up, and called for a (somewhat wishful) return to that format.

Going back to the early 2000s, when the Champions’ League had two group rounds and the G14, an actual cartel of football clubs, attempted to lobby UEFA to maintain their status quo, lest it be “forced” to form a breakaway European Super League, those calls were incredibly more vociferous, but despite the scrapping of the second round stage and the eventual dismantling of the G14, there were still voices of dissent. The group stage still contained too many non-champions. In addition to that, the UEFA Cup was seen as a second-rate competition, with too many small teams.

Now, with the play-off system sending big teams into the Europa League group stage, while actual champions play in the Champions League, the competitions are as balanced as they’ve ever been, but now the argument is, the top league champions now have it too easy against the smaller league champions! They’re virtually guaranteed to go into round 2! So should they be going back to how it was before the play-off round, in order to make the provide more competition for those teams (and shunt the smaller champions into the Europa League) or will Jim White not rest until it reverts back to a seedless knockout competition between the winners and runners-up? I can guarantee that even if this was to happen (which it won’t because no team in their right mind would give up six guaranteed European ties, three at home, with the possibility of more in the knockout stages of either European competition), people would still complain, along the lines of “that team wasn’t given enough of a chance to prove itself in only two games”, “the winner had an incredibly easy ride to the final”, and of course, one which crops up in international football, “some teams are getting destroyed - what’s the point of them even playing in it?” - what Jim White is arguing currently.

The direct knockout format didn't stop the 1991 final, won by Red Star, being decided on penalties after 120 minutes of 0-0.

Let’s face it, you can never please everyone in football. Everyone will have their opinion. However, one should take into account things such as principle (having champions play champions, no matter how big or rich the league), development of the smaller teams (ensuring that qualification will be both an unforgettable and constructive experience for the Cypriot or Slovenian team, upon which it can build in the following years, both in league and subsequent European adventures) and romance (Russian Rubin Kazan beating Barcelona, or APOEL Nicosia playing out a 2-2 draw against Chelsea). Sure, the smaller teams probably won’t progress at first, but at least they’re getting a chance, something they didn’t previously get. The group stage is an adventure for them rather than a short lived blur of disappointment. It will guarantee them money upon which they can build, and they always have the opportunity to record memorable results. Seeding in the group means there won’t be any scenarios where the big teams will wipe each other out too early, leaving lopsided ties in the latter rounds. If you think that may actually work, just remember Manchester United versus Millwall in the 2004 FA Cup final.

Furthermore, the Europa League is now a worthwhile competition to watch, thanks to the injection of stronger teams in the group stages (incidentally this was also a fairly new format - up until 2005 it was a knockout, and a combination of this and mediocre teams really made for a forgettable competition), which in turn had perked up the interest of the bigger clubs in the competition - with teams like Atletico Madrid, Villarreal, Bayer Leverkusen, Juventus, PSV, Porto and Liverpool jostling for the trophy, it really is like a simultaneous Champions League.

So for once, instead of moaning (and there seriously is plenty to moan about in football), shouldn’t we be praising Michel Platini’s efforts to improve European competition? Based on the above criteria, could we say this format is the best it's ever been?